Search

Your search keyword '"*RESOURCE allocation"' showing total 2 results
2 results on '"*RESOURCE allocation"'

1. Comparing Public Spending and Priorities Across OECD Countries

Author

Center for American Progress, Dewan, Sabina, and Ettlinger, Michael

Abstract

At the heart of progressivism is the belief that government--not big government, or small government, but effective government--has a critical role to play in ensuring the well being of its citizens. Public spending serves an important function in pursuing economic growth objectives while ensuring that gains are widely distributed to promote broad-based increases in living standards. But governments' relative fiscal positions, how much they spend, and the composition of that spending is likely to make a difference in achieving these objectives. Member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development--an international organization consisting primarily of developed, free-market economies--vary significantly in (1) their relative fiscal positions, or deficits and surpluses; (2) their amount of public spending; and (3) how they allocate spending across different categories to reflect priorities. This descriptive study examines how OECD countries have addressed the current economic situation through their fiscal balance sheets, and then goes on to consider similarities and differences in public spending across OECD countries through the prism of economic and social objectives. Countries are compared according to three relative measures of government spending: spending as a share of GDP, spending per capita, and spending by category as a percentage of total government expenditure.

Published
2009

2. Resource allocation in public sector programmes: does the value of a life differ between governmental departments?

Author

Cubi-Molla, Patricia, Mott, David, Henderson, Nadine, Zamora, Bernarda, Grobler, Mendel, and Garau, Martina

Subjects
*LOCAL government -- Societies, etc., *EVALUATION of human services programs, *SOCIAL values, *MEDICAL care costs, *PUBLIC health, *CONCEPTUAL structures, *RESOURCE allocation, *PUBLIC sector, *QUALITY of life, *DECISION making, *RESEARCH funding, *POLICY sciences
Abstract

Background: The value of a life is regularly monetised by government departments for informing resource allocation. Guidance documents indicate how economic evaluation should be conducted, often specifying precise values for different impacts. However, we find different values of life and health are used in analyses by departments within the same government despite commonality in desired outcomes. This creates potential inconsistencies in considering trade-offs within a broader public sector spending budget. We provide evidence to better inform the political process and to raise important issues in assessing the value of public expenditure across different sectors. Methods: Our document analysis identifies thresholds, explicitly or implicitly, as observed in government-related publications in the following public sectors: health, social care, transport, and environment. We include both demand-side and supply-side thresholds, understood as societies' and governments' willingness to pay for health gains. We look at key countries that introduced formal economic evaluation processes early on and have impacted other countries' policy development: Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. We also present a framework to consider how governments allocate resources across different public services. Results: Our analysis supports that identifying and describing the Value of a Life from disparate public sector activities in a manner that facilitates comparison is theoretically meaningful. The optimal allocation of resources across sectors depends on the relative position of benefits across different attributes, weighted by the social value that society puts on them. The value of a Quality-Adjusted Life Year is generally used as a demand-side threshold by Departments of transport and environment. It exceeds those used in health, often by a large enough proportion to be a multiple thereof. Decisions made across departments are generally based on an unspecified rationing rule. Conclusions: Comparing government expenditure across different public sector departments, in terms of the value of each department outcome, is not only possible but also desirable. It is essential for an optimal resource allocation to identify the relevant social attributes and to quantify the value of these attributes for each department. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results